But you're obviously guilty, so normal due process should be suspended in your case.

OK, here's my big chance to be all conservative and such.

Granted that the suspension of civil rights is regrettable. No one really wants to abrogate rights and no one really wants to have a future where such actions are commonplace. However the United States is currently in a state of war with organizations that have vowed to continue to destoy the lives of American citizens.

In these circumstances President Bush is not only the President, but the Commander in Chief of the armed forces whose dedicated mission is the preservation of American life. If he is not guaranteed security of person he cannot devote his attention to the task at hand. If all his attention is not so focused then the regrettable peroid where some civil rights needs to be suspended will continue for longer than anyone would like.

Mr. Ali was found guilty on the basis of his own confession with there being no evidence that torture or coersion was used to obtain that confession. In a calmer time, when there is no enemy currently bent on destruction of the United States, Americans could, and should, take additional steps to ensure that confession is free from taint. But right now, as no evidence for torture has been presented, Americans do not have the luxury of 100% certainty.

The evidence of the confession was supplement by evidence obtained using the Patriot Act. The evidence thus obtained was probably not sufficient to convict him by itself but it was perhaps enough to convince the judge that relying on a confession whose authenticy you are not 100% certain about was justified in this instance. Therefore the Patriot Act evidence was a buttress and not the sole support of the case.

Everyone hopes that this period of conflict will soon be over, but in the meantime the security of the average citizen, and of the forces protecting the average citizen must take precedence. Rights cannot be abrogated at will , but can if the evidence is sufficient, and the need dire, be suspended until a more appropriate time.

How'd I do?

Edited because there needs to be a little winky thing in here somewhere.

[Edited on Apr 01, 2006 by Andvari]

Better than the actual conservatives in this thread...

Yeah that was pretty good

And it took a fucking "liberal" to write it.

I'll be interested in the articulate responses to this. Emphasis on articulate.

I don't mind if someone tears me apart on that comment. I'll even try to defend from a conservative perspective (you'll have to bear with me though, I'm not used to it ). I'm just getting bloody bored with these inarticulate and frankly silly attempts to portray "conservative" (or even "pro-bush administration") ideology. I think they do a disservive to the intelligent conservatives I know and have the net effect of making liberals lazy. It becomes all too easy to dismiss the "other" side as wingnuts.


[Edited on Apr 01, 2006 by Andvari]

I don't care if your Liberal, Conservative, Independent, or whatever..........

What Andvari said is exactly what is happening right now

Whether you like it or not, how you want to view the situation is up to you

They are fighting a clandestine enemy, with clandestine tactics...... thats the bottom line..... both sides in my opinion have violated the Geneva Convention...

Its against the G.C. for the US Government to torture prisoners and detain people without due process........

....... Its also against the G.C. for a militia army to indiscriminately bomb civilian targets......

President Bush is on a crusade to "purge" the world of Terrorist, Secretarian Monarchies and Extremist Groups............. I just hope there is a world left when he is done

The only real difference between us, is that I can vote to change this government. And when I get the chance at the next election.... I will. While you can merely do is sit with your thumb up your ass, whining and lamenting about how "unfair" you think the US government is?


Im a conservative but I don't like Bush or his Facist Ideology


[Edited on Apr 01, 2006 by Dark_Templar]

First of all, thank you for articulating the position that the bona fide conservatives here repeatedly fail to do.

Actually, we are not in a state of "war," as Congress, the sole body charged with making such a determination, has not declared a state of war. All we have is the authorization of the use of force - which does not mention the suspension of civil liberties.

True enough.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, so I will take a pass.

Not entirely true. Saudi Arabia is on the State Department's list of states that routinely employ torture techniques to coerce confessions, deny prisoners legal counsel, etc. Additionally, the fact that Abu Ali's "confession" was obtained while he WAS NOT in U.S. custody, is, on its face, a violation of his 5th amendment due process rights, as it has no probative value. It is, by definition, circumstantial, and should not be considered admissible evidence under the federal rules of criminal procedure. Additionally, the trial judge refused to grant Abu Ali the opportunity to call witnesses, who were held at the same Saudi prison, at the same time, who were prepared to substantiate Abu Ali's claim that his confession was unlawfully obtained. These men were not named as co-conspirators in the alleged plot.

Again, the State Department presumes that confessions obtained in Saudi Arabia are very likely obtained under coercion. This presumption alone should impeach the credibility of Abu Ali's "confession." Absent that, a confession obtained NOT within the jurisdiction of the United States is considered to have no probative value - traditionally.

Problem is, this evidence was not mentioned in Abu Ali's indictment. Nor was it substantiated at the trial level. Even if it was, none of it establishes a criminal conspiracy, as the government presented no evidence that Abu Ali (a) actually agreed to engage in a criminal act with one or more other parties; nor (b) that he actually took steps to further a criminal act. Absent those elements, where is the conspiracy?

Possibly. However, no evidence of a conspiracy was ever presented at trial, and Abu Ali was never given the opportunity to rebut whatever evidence the government said it had. This is fundamentally unfair. Couple that with an unsubstantiated, and proceduraly inadmisible confession. It doesn't pass the smell test.

Well. But you are still wrong.

[Edited on Apr 01, 2006 by Dead_Ringer]

Give me a few minutes (or maybe more). I've got to try and do some conservative research.

And you're closing statement has me in stitches. I don't know why but it is the funniest thing I've read on the CE boards in a while.

Do your worst. But I do not have all night. There is a bottle of scotch staring me in the face, and I can not resist its siren call.

That's what I'm here for.

Drink away. I'll be a while. I want to make this attempt credible at least.

Please try not to be a bigger idiot than necessary.

Neither do I care. What I care about is a thoughtfully articulated position that can be assessed and thoughtfuly rebutted if a rebuttal is required.

You could not deliver this. It took Andvari to do this for you, for which you should be absolutely fucking ashamed.

Purge the entire world of these groups?

Are you completely fucking kidding me?

Oh wait ... you're serious....

This is what we call losing-the-argument-sour-grapes.

Go rock the vote, smart guy.

First off no one asked me to explain anything accept "why the government would with-hold evidence from the public in this particular trial" ALL I explained was why the US would detain, charge, sentence etc....... without giving evidence acessable to the public..........

Purge the entire world of these groups?

Yes the war on terror is global at this point! Watch the news!

This is what we call losing-the-argument-sour-grapes.

I just get tired on your personal attacks on me and the fact that you add NOTHING to this thread........... Except your Anti-US sentiments.......

anyway Ill pick this up in the morning the SGSJ dinner starts in 30.......


[Edited on Apr 01, 2006 by Dark_Templar]

anyone know how to cut and paste from a PDF document?

crap, this thing is 113 pages long. Respect for lawyers going up!

[Edited on Apr 01, 2006 by Andvari]

On the right hand side of the little "hand" icon, there should be a "select" option that (usually, not always) enables text copying-and-pasting.